The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's clear expression of opting for voluntary retirement scheme through a letter dated 01.10.1998 and the subsequent rejection of his claim by the respondents warranted the court to direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's resignation dated 01.10.1998 and disburse all terminal benefits including the pension.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the fourth respondent and to quash the order of the fourth respondent bearing Ref. No.ZOCH:PD:OS:G 294:99 dated 29.04.1999 and consequently direct the respondents to relieve the services pursuant to petitioner's letter of resignation dated 01.10.1998 by giving all terminal benefits including pension.)

1. The order under challenge in the present Writ Petition is one effecting the removal of services of the petitioner from the respondent bank, passed by the fourth respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(a) The petitioner herein has been in the services of the respondent bank from 29.09.1976 onwards. Since he has completed more than 10 years of services, he is entitled for pension. When the respondents had chosen to transfer the petitioner to its Zonal Office at Calcutta on 29.04.1993, the petitioner had expressed his inability to join the transferred post on medical grounds. Since he had not reported before the Calcutta Branch, a charge sheet came to be laid on 22.05.1995, pursuant to which, an enquiry was conducted. Consequently by an order dated 23.09.1996, the petitioner was directed to be removed from the services.

(b) As against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent herein and by an order dated 13.06.1998, the first respondent herein had reduced the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, into one of reduction in basic pay, by three stages, for a period of two years, with a further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction and that the reduction will have an effect of postponing the future increments of pay. It was further ordered therein that reinstatement shall come into effect from the date of his reporting duty at the place of posting, within 15 days from the date of receipt of that order.

(c) Inspite of the reduced punishment, the petitioner had not chosen to join the transferred place of posting and had sent a letter dated 01.10.1998 to the fourth respondent herein, raising queries as to whether he was entitled to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and if it was available, he had chosen to tender his option for VRS through the same letter. In the alternate, the petitioner had expressed his willingness to tender his resignation, in case he was not entitled to opt for voluntary retirement scheme.

(d) The fourth respondent herein, through letters dated 05.01.1999 and 13.01.1999 had informed the petitioner that since the petitioner had not opted for pension, he cannot seek for VRS under the pension regulations and therefore advised the petitioner to call on them for considering his resignation.

(e) It is in this background, the impugned order dated 29.04.1999 came to be passed by the fourth respondent observing that though the petitioner was called to report to the fourth respondent bank for the purpose of processing his resignation, he had not turned up and since he had failed to report for duties, it was observed that the petitioner had forfeited the benefits given to him by the Competent Authority and thereby, the original order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.09.1996, ordering the petitioner's removal from his services, was revived. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent, being a subordinate officer to the first and second respondent has no authority to pass the impugned order. He would submit that this is not a case of grave misconduct and that since the petitioner was ailing from asthmatic problems and he had medical records to substantiate such a medical ailment, a lenient